California Overturns Gay marriage Ban

[DayWalker]

SAN FRANCISCO - In a monumental victory for the gay rights movement, the California Supreme Court overturned a voter-approved ban on gay marriage Thursday in a ruling that would allow same-sex couples in the nation's biggest state to tie the knot.

Domestic partnerships are not a good enough substitute for marriage, the justices ruled 4-3 in an opinion written by Chief Justice Ron George.

Outside the courthouse, gay marriage supporters cried and cheered as news spread of the decision.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," the court wrote.

Live Vote!
Do you agree or disagree?

The city of San Francisco, two dozen gay and lesbian couples and gay rights groups sued in March 2004 after the court halted San Francisco's monthlong same-sex wedding march.

"Today the California Supreme Court took a giant leap to ensure that everybody — not just in the state of California, but throughout the country — will have equal treatment under the law," said City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who argued the case for San Francisco.

Coalition to challenge
The challenge for gay rights advocates, however, is not over.

A coalition of religious and social conservative groups is attempting to put a measure on the November ballot that would enshrine laws banning gay marriage in the state constitution.

The secretary of state is expected to rule by the end of June whether the sponsors gathered enough signatures to qualify the marriage amendment, similar to ones enacted in 26 other states.

If voters pass the measure in November, it would trump the court's decision.

California already offers same-sex couples who register as domestic partners the same legal rights and responsibilities as married spouses, including the right to divorce and to sue for child support.

But, "Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," Chief Justice Ron George wrote for the court's majority.

Click for related content
View California Supreme Court ruling (pdf)
Discuss: What do you think of the ruling?

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Marvin Baxter agreed with many arguments of the majority but said the court overstepped its authority. Changes to marriage laws should be decided by the voters, Baxter wrote.

Massachusetts is now the only U.S. state to allow gay marriage. Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont permit same-sex civil unions that grant largely the same state rights as married couples but lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," said Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in a statement. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this (ruling)."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/


Wait... civil rights for everyone???

What a novel idea...

[weskurtz81]

Legislating from the bench, against the people. I am not against gay rights, but I am against the Supreme court legislating from the bench, basically over turning the voters.... kind of messed up.

It just seems to me that the population should make that decision through representatives and other elected officials, I don't think it should be a decision the SC makes....

But, that's just me.

[dondidit]

I just wonder who can constitute who can marry who they love. If a man wants to be with a ma or a woman wants to be with a woman then let it be. We all sin one way or the other and the bishop is coming up with new sins lol. Politician and People in church what is this world coming to?

[DayWalker]

Legislating from the bench, against the people. I am not against gay rights, but I am against the Supreme court legislating from the bench, basically over turning the voters.... kind of messed up.

It just seems to me that the population should make that decision through representatives and other elected officials, I don't think it should be a decision the SC makes....

But, that's just me.

:suspect:

overturning the people huh?

so i guess by your logic slavery, segregation, etc should still be around if that's what the people wanted...

**** that's why we have supreme courts in the first place...

[BlindSight]

Legislating from the bench, against the people. I am not against gay rights, but I am against the Supreme court legislating from the bench, basically over turning the voters.... kind of messed up.

It just seems to me that the population should make that decision through representatives and other elected officials, I don't think it should be a decision the SC makes....

But, that's just me.

We're talking about the "republic" side of our republic democracy. The United States isn't supposed to be about majority mob rule.

If the majority of Americans are afraid of the idea of two men wrestling, then, well too freakin bad. They can't take away peoples rights just because they are the majority.



overturning the people huh?

so i guess by your logic slavery, segregation, etc should still be around if that's what the people wanted...

**** that's why we have supreme courts in the first place...

**** that is why the founding fathers intended America to be more of a republic then a democracy. Too bad most Americans are completely ignorant of this.

republic versus democracy (http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm)

[Scotracer]

+1 for equal rights!

Right now in the UK we can have a Civil Partnership, which whilst may have similar rights to marriage...I still want to be able to get married if I fall in love with a guy :(

Is that too much to ask?

[DayWalker]

**** that is why the founding fathers intended America to be more of a republic then a democracy. Too bad most Americans are completely ignorant of this.

republic versus democracy (http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm)

yup. you said it all. The mob is fickle.

Thanks God the founding fathers realized this when they did their thing.

[Carsonal]

Cool.
It still should have been done many years ago.
I guess thats the case with a lot of things.

[weskurtz81]

I understand that we are a "republic" and not a democracy, but often time our politicians do not treat it that way, Clinton definitely didn't, he was constantly polling public opinion....

Anyway, like I said, I don't disagree with gay rights, just don't like the way the supreme court works at times. So, how is this going to work now? Congress is supposed to work a constitutional ban now.... so, will the supreme court over turn it saying it's not constitutional if it passes? I know it's a series of checks and balances, and I don't have anything wrong with this ruling, but I always fear of rights being taken away by the supreme court, like the recent debates over the right to bear arms....

And just because I cringe at times when the supreme court legislates from the bench, doesn't mean I disagree with everything they have done like civil rights and such.... just the overall idea at times doesn't sit well with me.

[DayWalker]

I understand that we are a "republic" and not a democracy, but often time our politicians do not treat it that way, Clinton definitely didn't, he was constantly polling public opinion....

Anyway, like I said, I don't disagree with gay rights, just don't like the way the supreme court works at times. So, how is this going to work now? Congress is supposed to work a constitutional ban now.... so, will the supreme court over turn it saying it's not constitutional if it passes? I know it's a series of checks and balances, and I don't have anything wrong with this ruling, but I always fear of rights being taken away by the supreme court, like the recent debates over the right to bear arms....

And just because I cringe at times when the supreme court legislates from the bench, doesn't mean I disagree with everything they have done like civil rights and such.... just the overall idea at times doesn't sit well with me.

i don't understand how you can liken this to legislating from the bench...

that's one of the reasons we have courts... to ensure that legislation isn't unconstitutional and discriminatory...

and yes if congress tries to pass an amendment... the supreme court should blow it out of the water.

[Reagan1981]

Yay thats cool, give the perverts tax breaks so they can be rewarded for contributing nothing to society. There are reasons why there is an incentive to get married between a man and a women. For perverts, none.

[Sam_From_Space]

+1 for equal rights!

Right now in the UK we can have a Civil Partnership, which whilst may have similar rights to marriage...I still want to be able to get married if I fall in love with a guy :(

Is that too much to ask?

I didn't know you liked me that wa..... Wait, you didn't mean that.


I actually agree with you, marriage should be between two people who love each other, whatever sex they are.

[grcswoosh]

Yay thats cool, give the perverts tax breaks so they can be rewarded for contributing nothing to society. There are reasons why there is an incentive to get married between a man and a women. For perverts, none.

Dude, you are so ignorant. What can straight couples do that gay couples can't beside have their own biological children? Nothing. Adopting some of the millions of unwanted kids is a very important thing for this society. They pay their taxes, got to work, contribute to the economy and try to live a nice life. What else do you want? Did Brittany Spears 2 marriages help our society in any way? No. So STFU



I think this is a great decision. It will help a lot of the older people who's partner dies and then lose their house or savings because the ignorant family who hates them for being in love with their relative.

[Scotracer]

Yay thats cool, give the perverts tax breaks so they can be rewarded for contributing nothing to society. There are reasons why there is an incentive to get married between a man and a women. For perverts, none.

If you think the only thing you can contribute to society is to whack out another ****** offspring, you have some serious issues with your own self-esteem :lol:

Get the **** out, don't let your ignorance kick your *** too much. Bigot.

[Sam_From_Space]

If i'm honest, I think everybody is at least a bit bisexual, so why not let the people who's homosexuality outweighs their heterosexuality have the same rights as those who have the opposite ratio?

[Scotracer]

If i'm honest, I think everybody is at least a bit bisexual, so why not let the people who's homosexuality outweighs their heterosexuality have the same rights as those who have the opposite ratio?

That, to me, makes more sense than there being two absolutes (hetero and homo) and the rest falling into a bisexual category. I cannot fathom people being exclusively one sexuality...it doesn't make ANY sense to me. Why would someone be attracted solely to one sex? Reasoning? Obviously people are attracted to certain aspects of a person but I don't see why they would automatically exclude an entire sex.

[grcswoosh]

That, to me, makes more sense than there being two absolutes (hetero and homo) and the rest falling into a bisexual category. I cannot fathom people being exclusively one sexuality...it doesn't make ANY sense to me. Why would someone be attracted solely to one sex? Reasoning? Obviously people are attracted to certain aspects of a person but I don't see why they would automatically exclude an entire sex.

Uhhhh, I don't know why, but I have never been attracted to a dude. Ever. Well, maybe Steven Wright ;)

But I get what you are saying. I think a lot of it comes from environment and attitudes around you.

Steven Writght
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Steven_Wright.jpg

[Scotracer]

Hmm, you can have him, mate :lol:

[SymphonyX]

The right of judges to overturn decisions is arguably an overused power, but I believe that it is a necessary one in certain situations. For example, overturns against Jim Crow laws were necessary during the Civil Rights movement. Sometimes the people have it wrong because of incredible social bias, and make decisions that inherently cause disparity before the law in certain situations. This is another example of the fact that we do NOT live in a democracy, but that we live in a democratic republic.

Bias aside, I think the right decision was made here because the plain and simple truth is that the rights granted by marriage are unequal to those of "civil unions". In Brown v. Board of Education, the people of Topeka, and Kansas as a whole, were overwhelmingly against desegregation.

This issue and decision is not about judges with special interests, it's about equality before the law for all citizens.

[Byoushinn]

That, to me, makes more sense than there being two absolutes (hetero and homo) and the rest falling into a bisexual category. I cannot fathom people being exclusively one sexuality...it doesn't make ANY sense to me. Why would someone be attracted solely to one sex? Reasoning? Obviously people are attracted to certain aspects of a person but I don't see why they would automatically exclude an entire sex.

i think being attracted to someone entirely transcends gender, it shouldnt really matter what they are, if they are a great person and makes you happy then who is anyone to call that a sin?

[Scotracer]

i think being attracted to someone entirely transcends gender, it shouldnt really matter what they are, if they are a great person and makes you happy then who is anyone to call that a sin?

Definetely +rep

It's just funny that civilisations in the past (like the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans) embraced bisexuality and homosexuality yet now it is a sin. Who made that rule? Religious zealots? Some bigoted idiot? All of the above?

Whatever the reason, it's ridiculous that it has affected the public psyche so much that people WANT to stop people being happy by being able to marry who they want. It's ****ing ******ed.

[Byoushinn]

Definetely +rep

It's just funny that civilisations in the past (like the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans) embraced bisexuality and homosexuality yet now it is a sin. Who made that rule? Religious zealots? Some bigoted idiot? All of the above?

Whatever the reason, it's ridiculous that it has affected the public psyche so much that people WANT to stop people being happy by being able to marry who they want. It's ****ing ******ed.

Yeah definately, it's kind of hilarious how differently it has been percieved through time, these days, when the average person thinks 'gay' they see flamboyance and feminine and weakness and that kind of thing, but if you just look briefly into the past across the world, there's stuff like the Spartan army, they were brought up and lived with other men through their lives, and homosexual relationships were encouraged because it strengthened their bonds and morale, and then there is ancient Japan with the Samurai where a homosexual relationship was seen as the purest form of love - it's funny that both of those instances those are people who signify power and strength, and were respected, but now for some people, the thought of being that way causes them to deny what they are? Society ****ed up big time :lol:

[DayWalker]

i just don't get why conservative groups care.

Gay couples already act like they are married- all they want is the right to visit their loved on in the hospital, cover each other with insurance plans, etc.

Personally- the whole argument reminds me very much of the civil right movement when interracial couples were denied marriage licenses, benefits, etc. It's bigotry plain and simply.

You can argue your religious beliefs all you want... not everyone subscribes to that broken doctrine. Thank God for that.

[Lefein]

I want to marry a cheese grater. Don't judge me!

But seriously, marriage is a joke in the US. I might marry a dude just for the tax break. It would probably be easier than having to put up with a woman at this point.

[Lionel Hutz]

We're talking about the "republic" side of our republic democracy. The United States isn't supposed to be about majority mob rule.

If the majority of Americans are afraid of the idea of two men wrestling, then, well too freakin bad. They can't take away peoples rights just because they are the majority.


**** that is why the founding fathers intended America to be more of a republic then a democracy. Too bad most Americans are completely ignorant of this.

republic versus democracy (http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm)I'm only saying this because it can be a bit misleading for those that are not familiar with the US way of government (this forum has many international members). It is true that the US is a kind of republic. However, not all republics are democracies. The US is still a democracy (just a specific type). So calling the US a republic instead of a democracy implies that the US is not a democracy, and it is.

The link you provided is correct in how it works. Yet is misnames the types of democracy.
The US is not: "republic over democracy."
Rather, it is: "representative democracy over direct democracy."

i just don't get why conservative groups care.

Gay couples already act like they are married- all they want is the right to visit their loved on in the hospital, cover each other with insurance plans, etc.

Personally- the whole argument reminds me very much of the civil right movement when interracial couples were denied marriage licenses, benefits, etc. It's bigotry plain and simply.

You can argue your religious beliefs all you want... not everyone subscribes to that broken doctrine. Thank God for that.It is a tough area. And I think conservatives have some arguments:

1. Against the bible (and Church) - weak argument IMO.
2. It would give them a tax break - better than #1, but still weak.
3. Explained below.

If gay couples are allowed to marry, then where is the line drawn allowing them to have children? Once you allow marriage, you HAVE to allow these couples to do everything that current married couples can do. And one of those things is raise children.

You simply cannot add a stipulation on the the gay marriage clause which would forbid them from doing certain things. That would still classify as unequal. Frankly, I don't care what gay people do or don't do with each other(s). That is their right. However, I don't think that a child should be raised in that kind of environment. Not because it is "wrong," but because of the obvious implications that it would have on the child. Again, it may not be right, but one cannot deny that the child would be ridiculed and made fun of in school (or wherever he/she may hang out) by his/her peers. That's not a recipe for a healthy childhood.

[Tyrien]

Legislating from the bench, against the people. I am not against gay rights, but I am against the Supreme court legislating from the bench, basically over turning the voters.... kind of messed up.

It just seems to me that the population should make that decision through representatives and other elected officials, I don't think it should be a decision the SC makes....

But, that's just me.
Well that's not really the case. All the vote being approved means is that there are more people within the population who are against gay marriage, however this isn't quite the same as banning smoking, or banning drinking.

Our society places marriage as the highest form of publicly expressing your love to another person. Yea, it's not the absolute but for most cases this is what people think, or rather are told.

On top of that marriage isn't just a commitment. It's law binding and grants both parties rights from one another. Insurance for example. Health coverage, work benifits. It's basically saying to gays "You cannot be the same as straight people, you made the wrong choice and don't get the same rights". I don't care how many people vote yay, that's just not right.

You can't vote to take away someone's rights.

I'm only saying this because it can be a bit misleading for those that are not familiar with the US way of government (this forum has many international members). It is true that the US is a kind of republic. However, not all republics are democracies. The US is still a democracy (just a specific type). So calling the US a republic instead of a democracy implies that the US is not a democracy, and it is.

The link you provided is correct in how it works. Yet is misnames the types of democracy.
The US is not: "republic over democracy."
Rather, it is: "representative democracy over direct democracy."

It is a tough area. And I think conservatives have some arguments:

1. Against the bible (and Church) - weak argument IMO.
2. It would give them a tax break - better than #1, but still weak.
3. Explained below.

If gay couples are allowed to marry, then where is the line drawn allowing them to have children? Once you allow marriage, you HAVE to allow these couples to do everything that current married couples can do. And one of those things is raise children.

You simply cannot add a stipulation on the the gay marriage clause which would forbid them from doing certain things. That would still classify as unequal. Frankly, I don't care what gay people do or don't do with each other(s). That is their right. However, I don't think that a child should be raised in that kind of environment. Not because it is "wrong," but because of the obvious implications that it would have on the child. Again, it may not be right, but one cannot deny that the child would be ridiculed and made fun of in school (or wherever he/she may hang out) by his/her peers. That's not a recipe for a healthy childhood.

To be honest that's a piss poor reason for not allowing gays to raise a child. It's blatant denial of social progression. If some kids get made fun of in school then fine, that's sad but they'll move on. Kids have always gotten by in school for being made fun of one thing or another. No matter what you do kids are always going to make fun of their peers for being different in one way or another. It doesn't matter what, kids can just be jerks simply because they don't know any better.

It's a sacrifice that needs to be made. I can almost guarantee that the next generation raised by those children will not be acting the same way to children of gay couples.

Yea yea, think of the children. Why don't people think of society for a change.

[DayWalker]

I'm only saying this because it can be a bit misleading for those that are not familiar with the US way of government (this forum has many international members). It is true that the US is a kind of republic. However, not all republics are democracies. The US is still a democracy (just a specific type). So calling the US a republic instead of a democracy implies that the US is not a democracy, and it is.

The link you provided is correct in how it works. Yet is misnames the types of democracy.
The US is not: "republic over democracy."
Rather, it is: "representative democracy over direct democracy."

It is a tough area. And I think conservatives have some arguments:

1. Against the bible (and Church) - weak argument IMO.
2. It would give them a tax break - better than #1, but still weak.
3. Explained below.

If gay couples are allowed to marry, then where is the line drawn allowing them to have children? Once you allow marriage, you HAVE to allow these couples to do everything that current married couples can do. And one of those things is raise children.

You simply cannot add a stipulation on the the gay marriage clause which would forbid them from doing certain things. That would still classify as unequal. Frankly, I don't care what gay people do or don't do with each other(s). That is their right. However, I don't think that a child should be raised in that kind of environment. Not because it is "wrong," but because of the obvious implications that it would have on the child. Again, it may not be right, but one cannot deny that the child would be ridiculed and made fun of in school (or wherever he/she may hang out) by his/her peers. That's not a recipe for a healthy childhood.

given the state of parenting in this country I don't see how a gay couple could do any worse than a straight couple...

again... an eerily similar arguement to the one that was made during the civil rights movement with inter-racial marriage...

[Byoushinn]

I'm only saying this because it can be a bit misleading for those that are not familiar with the US way of government (this forum has many international members). It is true that the US is a kind of republic. However, not all republics are democracies. The US is still a democracy (just a specific type). So calling the US a republic instead of a democracy implies that the US is not a democracy, and it is.

The link you provided is correct in how it works. Yet is misnames the types of democracy.
The US is not: "republic over democracy."
Rather, it is: "representative democracy over direct democracy."

It is a tough area. And I think conservatives have some arguments:

1. Against the bible (and Church) - weak argument IMO.
2. It would give them a tax break - better than #1, but still weak.
3. Explained below.

If gay couples are allowed to marry, then where is the line drawn allowing them to have children? Once you allow marriage, you HAVE to allow these couples to do everything that current married couples can do. And one of those things is raise children.

You simply cannot add a stipulation on the the gay marriage clause which would forbid them from doing certain things. That would still classify as unequal. Frankly, I don't care what gay people do or don't do with each other(s). That is their right. However, I don't think that a child should be raised in that kind of environment. Not because it is "wrong," but because of the obvious implications that it would have on the child. Again, it may not be right, but one cannot deny that the child would be ridiculed and made fun of in school (or wherever he/she may hang out) by his/her peers. That's not a recipe for a healthy childhood.

But with that mentality, society will never progress forward, simply because the rearing of the child will always be seen as a taboo if it were done by two men - by having the view, and believing it's in the interest of the child, you're almost condeming future generations of children because as long as society thinks 'that kind of environment' is bad for the child, it'll always be something other children can ridicule and bully the child about.
It's such a non issue, with the common belief that two male parents would be bad for the childs social life, you're completely ignoring everything else about the parents, many things which could have greater positive impacts on a childs upbringing. Any type of family unit that was somewhat unconventional has had some sort of stigma attatched to it, and it's just irrational.

[Lefein]

IMHO I think it will come back to bite them in the ***. With all the studies showing a link between homosexuality and various other mental disorders, it's bound to put homosexuality in an even worse light as divorce rates and other things can start to be measured in the gay community.

It's all rah rah siss boom bah now, but to be frank, it's hard enough keeping a straight marriage working. Beware what you ask for.. You're pretty much handing society concrete and definable statistics to judge you by. When it comes to matters of love, it's usually wise to just leave "the man" out of it. Most people who are in a healthy relationship could give a crap less whether or not they are married because it makes no difference. It's all about hystrionics.

[JoNJoN]

Oh Daywalker, I love how you keep bringing up the whole civil rights thing yet your in love with the very party that was saying all that stuff. That truly is ironic.

As far as gay marriage goes, the whole thing is about legal rights and cheaper taxes correct? So why wouldn't a civil union be just as good? Last time I checked the government didn't create marriage, religion did. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

BTW, were now a theocracy what the people say or vote on doesn't matter anymore, all the power rests in the hands of them that wear the black robes. Every vote counts right Daywalker? Wasn't that the mantra 8 years ago....

[Centurion]

The US is a theocracy now?:???:


So why wouldn't a civil union be just as good? Last time I checked the government didn't create marriage, religion did. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?
Right, seperation of church and state. This is a civil issue, not a religious one. And quite frankly, religion has no place in such matters.

[DayWalker]

Oh Daywalker, I love how you keep bringing up the whole civil rights thing yet your in love with the very party that was saying all that stuff. That truly is ironic.

As far as gay marriage goes, the whole thing is about legal rights and cheaper taxes correct? So why wouldn't a civil union be just as good? Last time I checked the government didn't create marriage, religion did. Whatever happened to separation of church and state?

BTW, were now a theocracy what the people say or vote on doesn't matter anymore, all the power rests in the hands of them that wear the black robes. Every vote counts right Daywalker? Wasn't that the mantra 8 years ago....

Typical JonJon... only thinking along party lines. It's sad that you can't hold your own positions. But I have come to expect such tunnel vision from the likes of you...

The founding fathers created the courts in large to prevent mob rule.
The mob is fickle and prone to action on a whim.

Some states would still have slavery if it was up to a majority vote... which is perfectly ok by JonJons logic, right?

[Vulgotha]

The US is a theocracy now?:???:

Right, seperation of church and state. This is a civil issue, not a religious one. And quite frankly, religion has no place in such matters.


@whoever Centurion quoted (lol sorry Centurion I'm not blasting you)

Stick to the facts. Separation of church and state NEVER appeared in the constitution, not once.

It was in a letter from Jefferson.

At best, the separation is implied. It annoys me to no end seeing people throw that term around as if it's constitutional.

I'm not saying I disagree with keeping the church out of the government affairs- This is why the founders did not create a theocracy. They knew their history, they saw what happened in Europe with the power of the Vatican.

I think we've just taken it too far, as the founders were clearly religious.


I agree with Lefien. Long term this will prove to be detrimental.

[DayWalker]

Stick to the facts. Separation of church and state NEVER appeared in the constitution, not once.

It was in a letter from Jefferson.

At best, the separation is implied. It annoys me to no end seeing people throw that term around as if it's constitutional.

I'm not saying I disagree with keeping the church out of the government affairs- This is why the founders did not create a theocracy. They knew their history, they saw what happened in Europe with the power of the Vatican.

I think we've just taken it too far, as the founders were clearly religious.

regardless it is a brilliant doctrine...

I can't imagine this country without it...

Actually I can...(looks toward the middle east... shudders)

[Vulgotha]

We may become our own form of monster though Daywalker. We sought to not become the puppet's of powerful religious institutions and we may become an abomination in our own secular right.

It may soon be us alongside the ancient european countries of old in the textbooks of the future government discussion. Each of us on the opposite end of a bell curve.

[DayWalker]

We may become our own form of monster though Daywalker. We sought to not become the puppet's of powerful religious institutions and we may become an abomination in our own secular right.

It may soon be us alongside the ancient european countries of old in the textbooks of the future government discussion. Each of us on the opposite end of a bell curve.

I don't see how.
i don't pay attention to the gay community. I have my own beliefs, my own value system, my own faith. They can do whatever they want so long as it doesn't infringe on my own private practice.

Gay marriage doesn't come close to having any impact on my world... nor should it in anyone elses...

[Vulgotha]

Look at the bigger picture. Not just this solitary issue.

But humanity won't understand until everything goes horribly wrong. So let it be so.

Outside influence always effects what goes in with individuals beliefs and religion. "Society vs. Individual".

This is a key component of the Transcendentalism train of thought created by Emerson. While I don't agree with all his points* he is correct about a good many things. Especially issues regarding society.




*He would assert that the individual is moral, but the group is evil. I'd say they're both evil, but the individual is smarter.

[DayWalker]

We may become our own form of monster though Daywalker. We sought to not become the puppet's of powerful religious institutions and we may become an abomination in our own secular right.

It may soon be us alongside the ancient european countries of old in the textbooks of the future government discussion. Each of us on the opposite end of a bell curve.

sure its a possibility...
and we should work together to find a common middle ground.

But imo, we're still battling our way back to the middle from the right side of that bell curve.

Gay people already act and do as if they are married.
All they want is the ability to look out for one another... I don't see what's so evil and wrong with that...

[Vulgotha]

You can say we're in transition from right to middle, I'd assert we're going from middle to left.

It's perspective.

[grcswoosh]

I have not heard one single person give a single reason for this being bad. Lots of assumptions that this will end in ruin or problems or whatever, but no solid reasoning. There is nothing wrong with 2 people loving each other. Families need love, whether it comes from a guy and a gal or 2 of each.

As for the state vs religion thing, there is no perfect system because we are a bunch of greedy, corrupt, selfish human beings. I think our system is about as good as it gets. Checks and balances are constantly needed so that one particular group can not seize absolute power.
Religion having any control in government is ridiculous to me. It is completely up to interpretation based off a book that is over 2 thousand years old. Whether or not it is a real, doesn't matter, it is ancient. We can take the basic morality issues from it, but we have to evolve. That is what the constitution and Bill of Rights ensures. We have the power to elect people to make decisions. If we do not like their decisions after we put them in power, we can get rid of them later. How can it be better than that. If we elect people with religious backgrounds that is our choice, but the bible should not have any direct influence on current legislation.

[JoNJoN]

@whoever Centurion quoted (lol sorry Centurion I'm not blasting you)

Stick to the facts. Separation of church and state NEVER appeared in the constitution, not once.

It was in a letter from Jefferson.

At best, the separation is implied. It annoys me to no end seeing people throw that term around as if it's constitutional.

I'm not saying I disagree with keeping the church out of the government affairs- This is why the founders did not create a theocracy. They knew their history, they saw what happened in Europe with the power of the Vatican.

I think we've just taken it too far, as the founders were clearly religious.


I agree with Lefien. Long term this will prove to be detrimental.

I'm who you quoted and your agreeing with what I was intending to say. As I said, government didn't create marriage, the church did. When it comes to school prayer, OH absolutely can't have that why there can never be religion with government. Yet with changing marriage, now its ok? It seems to me whenever democrats need to get something done, they bypass the will of the people. Even now, their supposed nominee is only able to be that because they totally ignore all the votes of the people in Florida and Michigan. Why not have a recount? So a vote is allowed in California in which 60% of the people said no but pppsssshhhhh what does it matter what people vote for anyways. Why you can have 4 people in black robes overturn 4.6 million people. I didn't know a judge had the same power as 1.15 million votes. I must be stupid and idiotic to see something wrong with that I guess.

And Daywalker, what is it with you and slavery? Are you 200 years old or something? I had nothing to do with it and stop acting like I did or anyone alive today did. I never once said I agreed with it either. Why don't you stop talking for once and learn a little history. I believe the president that fought to abolish slavery was a republican. There was also a group know as the "radical republicans" that didn't like how slow he was to move the fight against slavery (imagine that). Then after the war was over and the south was all pissed about losing, who was it that benefited from that anger? Why your friendly neighborhood democrats. They fed into the anger of the south and actually rose to power with the anger of the racist south (almost like today with the war, wow when are they ever happy). Then all you have to do is fast forward 100 years and the results of this rise to power from the racist south is clearly on display with the likes of Bull Conner, and George Wallace. Both parties have screwed up in the past so stop acting like one party is from the heavens and the other is from the furthest depths of hell. And learn how to be a grown-up instead of a middle school brat and making stupid comments like " Some states would still have slavery if it was up to a majority vote... which is perfectly ok by JonJons logic, right?"

[Vulgotha]

Oh. My bad Jonjon. Wow I totally took what you said wrong.


Jonjon, Daywalker is referring to the Supreme Court's involvement with the Slave issues and the Jim Crowe laws... I think he may be slightly incorrect however.


Daywalker I find it interesting you use the Supreme Court in a positive manner regarding slavery- they're the ones who prolonged it initially. They validated the Jim Crowe Laws at first.

The unwieldy and imbalanced Pendulum that is the Supreme Court swings both ways.

[DayWalker]

Oh. My bad Jonjon. Wow I totally took what you said wrong.


Jonjon, Daywalker is referring to the Supreme Court's involvement with the Slave issues and the Jim Crowe laws... I think he may be slightly incorrect however.


Daywalker I find it interesting you use the Supreme Court in a positive manner regarding slavery- they're the ones who prolonged it initially. They validated the Jim Crowe Laws at first.

The unwieldy and imbalanced Pendulum that is the Supreme Court swings both ways.

naw... many people including myself think the supreme courts biggest failure was their support of "separate but equal"

[Vulgotha]

Which is 99.9% what I just said.

[DayWalker]

And Daywalker, what is it with you and slavery? Are you 200 years old or something? I had nothing to do with it and stop acting like I did or anyone alive today did. I never once said I agreed with it either. Why don't you stop talking for once and learn a little history. I believe the president that fought to abolish slavery was a republican. There was also a group know as the "radical republicans" that didn't like how slow he was to move the fight against slavery (imagine that). Then after the war was over and the south was all pissed about losing, who was it that benefited from that anger? Why your friendly neighborhood democrats. They fed into the anger of the south and actually rose to power with the anger of the racist south (almost like today with the war, wow when are they ever happy). Then all you have to do is fast forward 100 years and the results of this rise to power from the racist south is clearly on display with the likes of Bull Conner, and George Wallace. Both parties have screwed up in the past so stop acting like one party is from the heavens and the other is from the furthest depths of hell. And learn how to be a grown-up instead of a middle school brat and making stupid comments like " Some states would still have slavery if it was up to a majority vote... which is perfectly ok by JonJons logic, right?"

yawn... I know my history thanks... and why do you keep bringing up parties???

the southern democrats are the small sect that you are referring too... "southern" being the key term.

Again- I don't think I have mentioned a party once in this thread... so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up.
Nor have I said you or anyone else here is responsible for slavery- so i don't know why you continue to bring that up.

You're point was to wine about the will of the people being overturned.
My counter was that the people don't always know or do what is best- kinda goes hand in hand with Vulgotha's "everyone/everything is evil" philosophy. I used the civil rights movement as an example of society being slow on its feet and the courts and government having to get involved to ensure "liberty and justice for all".

Point. Counter Point.

You're the one who keeps grasping at party affiliations and platforms. not I.

Keep up or shut up. :|

Which is 99.9% what I just said.

I was acknowledging that you are correct and that I am indeed aware of it.

[Vulgotha]

Lol my philosophy. I'm honored Daywalker.

You feel similar about such things?

[DayWalker]

Lol my philosophy. I'm honored Daywalker.

You feel similar about such things?

yes and no.

... I guess I believe it but don't want to... ya feel me?

[Vulgotha]

I know what you mean entirely. I'm not so happy about it either.

I just feel like I'd be lying to myself and others if I proclaimed anything but.

[JoNJoN]

and why do you keep bringing up parties???

If you agree with me that both parties suck then I'll never say another word about them.

I don't believe everyone is evil. Maybe selfish or stupid but not evil. We've seen evil with the likes of Hitler and Mussolini and I really don't believe all people are like that. Slaves were all about the economy, people were selfish (kinda like today with immigration, same argument). Everyone thought the world was flat once, people were stupid or ignorant. If all people truly were evil then I don't think we would still exist today.

[Uncool]

We're talking about the "republic" side of our republic democracy. The United States isn't supposed to be about majority mob rule.

If the majority of Americans are afraid of the idea of two men wrestling, then, well too freakin bad. They can't take away peoples rights just because they are the majority.




**** that is why the founding fathers intended America to be more of a republic then a democracy. Too bad most Americans are completely ignorant of this.

republic versus democracy (http://www.c4cg.org/republic.htm)
Ouch....but you have a point we should have been more of a republic as democracy often brings with it tyranny in terms of its legislation towards its own people specifically.

Cool.
It still should have been done many years ago.
I guess thats the case with a lot of things.
Yeah the transition has been painful but far from over. It has to be supported throughout the country.

Yay thats cool, give the perverts tax breaks so they can be rewarded for contributing nothing to society. There are reasons why there is an incentive to get married between a man and a women. For perverts, none.
OMG reagonomics?! The incentive is to continue the growth of the economy, there is a reason why marriage should be for the right reasons not just to elongate man's existence reproducing nubcakes.

Lock up the gays !!!!!! dont let those things marry!!!!!!
Then can I ban you please? So you can drop the soap and become someone's ***** in prison?:pale

[QuickSilverD]

That, to me, makes more sense than there being two absolutes (hetero and homo) and the rest falling into a bisexual category. I cannot fathom people being exclusively one sexuality...it doesn't make ANY sense to me. Why would someone be attracted solely to one sex? Reasoning? Obviously people are attracted to certain aspects of a person but I don't see why they would automatically exclude an entire sex. uhh because sexual atraction is the way of nature to make sure a species keeps existing ergo it makes more sense having natural atraction to the oposite sex rather than the same sex, I don't understand how you could think like that

i think being attracted to someone entirely transcends gender, it shouldnt really matter what they are, if they are a great person and makes you happy then who is anyone to call that a sin? if another man is a great person and makes me happy, t he and I could just be friends, the only reason for why one should feel sexual atraction to someone else would be because of the possibility of reproduction

Definetely +rep

It's just funny that civilisations in the past (like the Greeks, Egyptians and Romans) embraced bisexuality and homosexuality yet now it is a sin. Who made that rule? Religious zealots? Some bigoted idiot? All of the above?

Whatever the reason, it's ridiculous that it has affected the public psyche so much that people WANT to stop people being happy by being able to marry who they want. It's ****ing ******ed.
You do know that those ancient civilisations also embraced pedophilia don't you? for the Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece)in particular Pederasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Greek_pederasty) was common place, and also in ancient times a 12-year-old girl would be ready to get married you know.

My point is that there is no point comparing the sexual actitutes of diferent civilizations in diferent periods of time.

IMHO I think it will come back to bite them in the ***. With all the studies showing a link between homosexuality and various other mental disorders, it's bound to put homosexuality in an even worse light as divorce rates and other things can start to be measured in the gay community.

It's all rah rah siss boom bah now, but to be frank, it's hard enough keeping a straight marriage working. Beware what you ask for.. You're pretty much handing society concrete and definable statistics to judge you by. When it comes to matters of love, it's usually wise to just leave "the man" out of it. Most people who are in a healthy relationship could give a crap less whether or not they are married because it makes no difference. It's all about hystrionics.

Take this as no offence but, Are you a Christian Catholic?



Dylan_IRL[/B]]
Lock up the gays !!!!!! dont let those things marry!!!!!!

Then can I ban you please? So you can drop the soap and become someone's ***** in prison?:pale

Hey make sure that he is not just being sarcastic before you do anything.

[DayWalker]

If you agree with me that both parties suck then I'll never say another word about them.

I don't believe everyone is evil. Maybe selfish or stupid but not evil. We've seen evil with the likes of Hitler and Mussolini and I really don't believe all people are like that. Slaves were all about the economy, people were selfish (kinda like today with immigration, same argument). Everyone thought the world was flat once, people were stupid or ignorant. If all people truly were evil then I don't think we would still exist today.

the economy huh? selfish huh?
I don't think that fully accounts for the rape , murder, tearing apart of families, destruction of culture over hundreds of years...
and if it does- how do you account for the 100+ years following the civil war? ya know when slavery was "abolished"???

I hate when people act like slavery was no big deal- "they just worked for free- what?" :roll:
or that people should "get over it"

You never hear people telling the Jews to get over the holocaust... (and if you do those people are called terrorists...)

Anyways- I digress from the topic at hand...

If you agree with me that both parties suck then I'll never say another word about them..

we've covered this ground so many times before... :roll:

[Scotracer]

uhh because sexual atraction is the way of nature to make sure a species keeps existing ergo it makes more sense having natural atraction to the oposite sex rather than the same sex, I don't understand how you could think like that

if another man is a great person and makes me happy, t he and I could just be friends, the only reason for why one should feel sexual atraction to someone else would be because of the possibility of reproduction


You do know that those ancient civilisations also embraced pedophilia don't you? for the Greeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_Ancient_Greece)in particular Pederasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Greek_pederasty) was common place, and also in ancient times a 12-year-old girl would be ready to get married you know.

My point is that there is no point comparing the sexual actitutes of diferent civilizations in diferent periods of time.



Take this as no offence but, Are you a Christian Catholic?



Hey make sure that he is not just being sarcastic before you do anything.

That doesn't mean people are NOT attracted to the same sex as well. That is all I am suggesting is that people can be attracted to both but we're cognitive beings so we know we must mate with a female to reproduce.

Oh and many cultures right now allow marriage and expect girls to have children as soon as they are physically able too. That is, afterall, the point of puberty isn't it?

[QuickSilverD]

That doesn't mean people are NOT attracted to the same sex as well. That is all I am suggesting is that people can be attracted to both but we're cognitive beings so we know we must mate with a female to reproduce. You said "I cannot fathom people being exclusively one sexuality...it doesn't make ANY sense to me" my point was that it does makes perfect sense because that's the way it is intended in nature, regardless of whenever we can, with our genious intelligent minds, ignore it or not.


Oh and many cultures right now allow marriage and expect girls to have children as soon as they are physically able too. That is, afterall, the point of puberty isn't it? it is, it certanlly is, but that doesn't mean it is socially aceptable in our society, maybe in the future who knows, wait, you are not in favor of "just-entered-into-puverty" girls having sex with older guys are you?

[tjbo1m]

quick 2c.

I am all about equal rights. I believe people should be fairly treated.

I think homosexuality is a sin.

I believe that even though it is a sin, they have their rights to do what they want, and so I will hold nothing against them.

I believe gay people deserves the benefits of marriage such as tax purposes, insurance, etc.

HOWEVER: I believe that MARRIAGE is defined as the union between a MAN and a WOMAN under god. It is holy matrimony. This is why I do not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to get MARRIED.

I am fine with Civil Unions, or whatever you want to call it. But for them to force the subject of using the term Marriage is taking away from other people and cultures. To some people in christian and other religions, they may feel that giving the right of Marriage to gay people is taking away from them in some way.



I say let there be unions that give all the rights of marriage, but not use that term because it is a religious term to most of our population.


my 2c

[Xaor]

Marriage has absolutely no Christian element to it by definition.

I do not agree with homosexuals being married by the church, because I do not believe it is right that:

1. Christians can accept homosexuals

2. Homosexuals can accept a religion based on a book which specifically states that they are sinners

but marriage? It doesn't have anything to do with Christianity necessarily, and therefore to attempt to protect that word... is absolutely ridiculous.

[tjbo1m]

Marriage has absolutely no Christian element to it by definition.

I do not agree with homosexuals being married by the church, because I do not believe it is right that:

1. Christians can accept homosexuals

2. Homosexuals can accept a religion based on a book which specifically states that they are sinners

but marriage? It doesn't have anything to do with Christianity necessarily, and therefore to attempt to protect that word... is absolutely ridiculous.


Not trying to be rude, serious question for debate.

I don't understand how say that marriage has nothing to do with christianity? Isn't it written all over the bible?


MAL 2:14 You ask, "Why?" It is because the LORD is acting as the witness
between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with
her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.

15 Has not the LORD made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And
why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your
spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth.


that's just one reference of hundreds.


I don't see why it's ridiculous to say that a word comes from a spiritual context and so should not be allowed to be used in a different way.

[DayWalker]

isn't the term or idea of marriage found in every relgion's... book?

[tjbo1m]

isn't the term or idea of marriage found in every relgion's... book?


Yeah, I wasn't trying to say that it was specific to christianity, just using it as an example because its the main religion in America.

[Taion]

IMHO I think it will come back to bite them in the ***. With all the studies showing a link between homosexuality and various other mental disorders, it's bound to put homosexuality in an even worse light as divorce rates and other things can start to be measured in the gay community.

It's all rah rah siss boom bah now, but to be frank, it's hard enough keeping a straight marriage working. Beware what you ask for.. You're pretty much handing society concrete and definable statistics to judge you by. When it comes to matters of love, it's usually wise to just leave "the man" out of it. Most people who are in a healthy relationship could give a crap less whether or not they are married because it makes no difference. It's all about hystrionics.


I think the majority of mental disorders that homosexuals are prone to stem from the belief that homosexuality is innately immoral, and a sin. So in essence, once the stigma of being gay is removed then there would be no cause for mental disorders to arise.

As for marriage, I believe marriage is completely ridiculous. The unity which connects each and every one of us is far stronger than the unity between a man and a woman (which in the majority of cases nowadays ends up in divorce)

[Vulgotha]

..What is it that you believe in Taion? It isn't pantheism or paganism, it's like some sort of collective humanity hivemind...

[Fatso]

This is a very touchy subject for a lot of people. I don't disagree with people being homosexual at all, they are allowed to live however they want. But when they have to flaunt it in front of everyone by having Gay Day and big parades, I think it's just rude. Yeah I'm proud to be straight and married to a women but I don't shove it in your face and have big parades about being a heterosexual do I?